Sage Advice 3/21/16 Exploding druids and antimagic field vs zombies and cure wounds

The answer to the druid and metal armor is excellent. Not so much the ruling itself, but the clear way it explains that classes have both story and game elements, and some classes have more story elements than others.

 

[jrowland]

Thats the problem. So many vegetarians are closet meat eaters.

Mmmm....closet meat...*Homer Simpson drool*

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Well, no, not really.

The DM is not supposed to say anything, because you the player aren't supposed to try.

If you do try, it's on you to come up with what happens.

What do you want to happen, Sword?

No, don't tell me, just use your answer in your campaign.

That's an intriguing way of dealing with it, to ask the player what happens when they do it. I expect a lot of players would impose greater penalties on themselves than I would, which could be fun.

Perhaps an easier way to present my position would be just to give examples of alternate phrasing that the PHB could have used that I would have been fine with:

"Wearing metal armor violates druidic beliefs." Optional: "and they lack proficiency in metal armors."

Or...

"Druids venerate nature and hold to certain beliefs and taboos associated with this veneration. One such taboo forbids the wearing of metal armor. A druid who violates their beliefs or taboos (including by wearing metal armor) is generally ostracized or cast out of druidic society, and may lose (temporarily or permanently) some of their class features, as the DM sees fit." Optional: "Some druidic traditions might very in their taboos. An order of deep dwelling mountain dwarf druids, for example, might not only be allowed to wear metal armor, but see it as a more natural and fitting garb than leather."

Or how about a sidebar to this effect...

"VIOLATING DRUIDIC TRADITIONS
A druid tries to hold to the highest standards of veneration of nature according to tradition, but even the most reverent druid is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a druid to violate his or her taboos.
A druid who has violated a taboo of druidic tradition (such as wearing metal armor or teaching the Druidic language to a non-druid) typically seeks absolution from another druid. The druid might spend an all-night vigil in contemplation as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of cleansing and purification, the druid starts fresh.
If a druid willfully violates druid traditions and shows no signs of reform, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, a rebellious druid might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another."

 

[CapnZapp]

Excellent! Use that.

Just don't expect all other gamers to need it.

But now those who do can find your suggestion in this thread, while those who don't want any particular belief set or penalty imposed on their Druid characters can use the PHB as-is.

Problem solved!

Point is: the lack of information or a definition is not always a bad thing.

 

[Li Shenron]

Nah, the Druid armors restriction is still a completely dumb rule, because of the story explanation being inconsistent with all the rest of technologies or "civilized" tools that they can use, from crossbows to any crafting tools for example.

In addition, every time a designers starts mentioning "this has been there since the 1st edition" as a supposed justification, he immediately loses my trust and respect. They have removed or changed sacred cows at any editions, and "this has been there since the 1st edition" is as good a reason to keep something as it is an equally good reason to remove it.

 

[Lost Soul]

Why can't people come to grips with the fact that druids just don't like to wear metal armor? That its rule of their faith? Not all religious rules need to make sense or have an in game penalty or restriction for failing to adhere to hem. At worst I would say that it cuts off the druid's connection to the land and they lose access to all druid spells, shape changing and supernatural druid abilities like land stride and charm resistance as nature withdraws her support. Religious taboos do not have to make sense. Druids forbid wearing metal armor. The rules do not need to change because a player feels like he needs AC 20 or else he is not playing a druid effectively.

 

[Celtavian]

I let dwarven druids wear metal armor as a house rule. I like the idea of mountain druids that appreciate what the metals carefully mined from the mountain can provide.

 

[Lost Soul]

Nah, the Druid armors restriction is still a completely dumb rule, because of the story explanation being inconsistent with all the rest of technologies or "civilized" tools that they can use, from crossbows to any crafting tools for example.

In addition, every time a designers starts mentioning "this has been there since the 1st edition" as a supposed justification, he immediately loses my trust and respect. They have removed or changed sacred cows at any editions, and "this has been there since the 1st edition" is as good a reason to keep something as it is an equally good reason to remove it.

I disagree with your assessment. By removing restrictions, even if they seem like arbitrary restrictions you remove the need for the class. Why have druids at all if you can just make a nature cleric and keep the armor proficiencies that a cleric gets? Its the argument that broke out in 4rth edition with paladins & clerics. Why have a paladin as a specific holy warrior when clerics are the holy warriors of their faith? The original cleric concept was taken from Hospitlar & Templar knights from the crusades. Paladins were meant to be that one in a million warrior who actually is a true white knight that champions goodness, law and the common weal. Not a vainglorious warrior absorbed in himself. But now clerics have almost everything a paladin has with regards to weapon & armor training, especially if she takes a militant domain such as war or storms. Its when designers start making the classes all cookie cutter that they lose their flavor and become identical. Then the game breaks down because its all about combat instead of the characters.

 

[Celtavian]

I disagree with your assessment. By removing restrictions, even if they seem like arbitrary restrictions you remove the need for the class. Why have druids at all if you can just make a nature cleric and keep the armor proficiencies that a cleric gets? Its the argument that broke out in 4rth edition with paladins & clerics. Why have a paladin as a specific holy warrior when clerics are the holy warriors of their faith? The original cleric concept was taken from Hospitlar & Templar knights from the crusades. Paladins were meant to be that one in a million warrior who actually is a true white knight that champions goodness, law and the common weal. Not a vainglorious warrior absorbed in himself. But now clerics have almost everything a paladin has with regards to weapon & armor training, especially if she takes a militant domain such as war or storms. Its when designers start making the classes all cookie cutter that they lose their flavor and become identical. Then the game breaks down because its all about combat instead of the characters.

It's been all about combat for a long time now. Combat has always been the largest component of the base game. That's not to say people haven't done other types of campaigns, but D&D has always focused heavily on combat. For whatever reason people like the thrill of murder-hoboing or the by its more ancient terms: looting and pillaging. The idea of being a mercenary strong enough to wander a dangerous world surviving by your combat power, while accumulating vast treasure and magic is an appealing one. The sense of freedom, power, adventure, and thrill all combines to make being a powerful, rich murder hobo aka raider/adventurer good fun.

 

[Lost Soul]

It's been all about combat for a long time now. Combat has always been the largest component of the base game. That's not to say people haven't done other types of campaigns, but D&D has always focused heavily on combat. For whatever reason people like the thrill of murder-hoboing or the by its more ancient terms: looting and pillaging. The idea of being a mercenary strong enough to wander a dangerous world surviving by your combat power, while accumulating vast treasure and magic is an appealing one. The sense of freedom, power, adventure, and thrill all combines to make being a powerful, rich murder hobo aka raider/adventurer good fun.

That's cool. If that is your game. Play it how you want. I do have an issue with people wanting NO restrictions on their characters. If you want to homebrew that dwarven druids in your game world can wear metal armor then go for it. I do not want to see that become cannon. In my mid being a druid is MORE important than being a dwarf. It is no different than being in a monastic tradition that places emphasis on vows of chastity & celibacy. The monastic tradition and its rules are MORE important than my emphasis of being a man. If I want to be a monk of their order then I need to give up pleasures of the flesh. Same thing with druids in my opinion. They don't make exceptions for dwarves or for chatty/scholarly people who wish to share knowledge about druidic language.

 

[77IM]

Why can't people come to grips with the fact that druids just don't like to wear metal armor?

Because at no other point does a game rule dictate what a PC does or does not like, or what they will or won't do. That's for the player to decide, not the rules.

(Except, for magical domination effects. Actually, ruling that druids won't wear metal armor because they are all magically dominated not to would be an interesting take on this ability. Maybe apply the penalties of the geas spell to a druid who wears metal armor...)